The biggest casualty of budget cuts will be humanitarian aid

Attempting to balance the EU budget on the backs of the world’s poorest is against the EU’s own interests

European Voice

1/30/13, 8:50 PM CET

Updated 4/13/14, 12:29 AM CET

Toby Vogel suggested in a blog post that a deal on the European Union’s budget for 2014-20 is probably very close (“Inside Herman Van Rompuy’s mind”, 25 January). If the final budget is like the proposal discussed by national leaders in November, the biggest casualty will be humanitarian and development aid. This would be terrible.

That proposal disproportionately targeted EU external spending, cutting €6.1 billion to development aid and more than a billion to humanitarian aid from the European Commission’s proposal, which the European Parliament said should be “the bare minimum”.

There is a general agreement that the EU budget should be for the benefit of EU citizens. But it should also provide the Union with the means to live up to its ambitions and commitments as a global player. EU aid is not only morally right; it is an economically sound investment.

The EU’s humanitarian and development aid is one of the most efficient, impactful and transparent in the world: this has been reiterated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, governments, independent think-tanks and civil-society organisations. It delivers significant, very real results. In the past three years, EU aid has stopped 50 million people in more than 50 countries from being hungry, has provided access to primary education for more than 9 million children and ensured 4 million more safe births. In just six years, it has given more than 31 million people access to safe drinking water.

Aid is also a smart and strategic investment. Aid flows increase trade and promote stability and security. Moreover, EU aid promotes growth within Europe itself. Recent research by the Overseas Development Institute and ONE showed that EU aid could yield a net gain in EU GDP of €11.5 billion by 2020, by boosting trade. Few investments can provide such a rapid and far-reaching impact for so little. EU aid costs less than the price of a cup of coffee per person per week.

So why attempt to balance the EU budget on the backs of the world’s poorest at the expense of the Union’s common interest and commitments?

It cannot be right to intend to cut EU aid by 12%, while the proposed cut to the overall budget is 7%.

EU leaders should show that the EU still has ambitions to remain a leader in the fight against poverty and humanitarian disasters. The European Commission’s proposal was balanced. It should be supported and the aid budget ring-fenced.

Natalia Alonso

Oxfam International

Tim Roosen

Action for Global Health

Karen Schroh

Plan EU

Eloise Todd

ONE Campaign

Brussels

Related stories on these topics:

Let there be no question, a US–EU free trade agreement would be the world’s largest, creating an economic bloc boasting $4 trillion in trade, investment, and commercial sales. Annual trade in goods and services across the Atlantic accounts for about $650 billion of that figure (and 40 percent of global commerce).By comparison, American trade with China comes to about $500 billion, with a $300 billion balance in China’s favour. The potential benefits of a trans–Atlantic FTA are numerous. Tariffs between the two sides are already low, averaging about 5 percent to 7 percent. However, a study by the US Chamber of Commerce found that eliminating these tariffs would boost two-way trade by $120 billion within five years and add $180 billion to the new bloc’s combined GDP. An FTA would also add 1.5 percent to 2 percent combined to U.S. and European output. The global influence of this gigantic economic and commercial entity would be more than either side now enjoys, notably in their dealings with China, Japan, and other nations with differing economic models. Everyone touts “the Asian century,” and the rise of China, India, and others is plain enough. The FTA about to be put on the table would give both the US and Europe ballast. But here is where the house of cards begins to look like… a house of cards. At least in relative terms, things such as tariffs are value-neutral. You can have low tariffs or none and run any kind of economy you prefer. But America and the European Union remind me of a couple I knew in college. They loved one another madly, but could not agree on anything. And they never made it down the aisle. Americans and Europeans are unlikely to cut a deal because of conflicting policy priorities. • Compatible regulatory regimes: Can the two sides achieve them? They are very different in terms of the extent to which governments can intervene to restrict (or not) corporate investment, for instance, or regulate financial entities. America’s markets are more self-regulating than Europe’s. • Testing, certification, and licensing standards: When it comes to procedures required to put products on the market, Europe’s standards, in general, are much higher. This covers everything from drugs to wine to building materials to artisanal cheeses. It is a considerable source of potential conflict. • Labour standards: America just reached a70–year low in the proportion of workers—11.9 percent—who belong to unions. Europe, of course, is far more heavily unionized. Whose standards are going to apply if, under an FTA, Europeans insist on extending their standards to cover imports from the US? • Environmental standards and climate-change policies: The Europeans are far in advance of the Americans by this metric. • Food safety: Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are allowed in some of America’s food supply while the Europeans do not trust them. America and Europe do not already have an FTA because of culture, political history, and different notions of the role of the state. It will be tough getting to the front door of the church. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla
DBA

Let there be no question, a US–EU free trade agreement would be the world’s largest, creating an economic bloc boasting $4 trillion in trade, investment, and commercial sales. Annual trade in goods and services across the Atlantic accounts for about $650 billion of that figure (and 40 percent of global commerce).By comparison, American trade with China comes to about $500 billion, with a $300 billion balance in China’s favour. The potential benefits of a trans–Atlantic FTA are numerous. Tariffs between the two sides are already low, averaging about 5 percent to 7 percent. However, a study by the US Chamber of Commerce found that eliminating these tariffs would boost two-way trade by $120 billion within five years and add $180 billion to the new bloc’s combined GDP. An FTA would also add 1.5 percent to 2 percent combined to U.S. and European output. The global influence of this gigantic economic and commercial entity would be more than either side now enjoys, notably in their dealings with China, Japan, and other nations with differing economic models. Everyone touts “the Asian century,” and the rise of China, India, and others is plain enough. The FTA about to be put on the table would give both the US and Europe ballast. But here is where the house of cards begins to look like… a house of cards. At least in relative terms, things such as tariffs are value-neutral. You can have low tariffs or none and run any kind of economy you prefer. But America and the European Union remind me of a couple I knew in college. They loved one another madly, but could not agree on anything. And they never made it down the aisle. Americans and Europeans are unlikely to cut a deal because of conflicting policy priorities. • Compatible regulatory regimes: Can the two sides achieve them? They are very different in terms of the extent to which governments can intervene to restrict (or not) corporate investment, for instance, or regulate financial entities. America’s markets are more self-regulating than Europe’s. • Testing, certification, and licensing standards: When it comes to procedures required to put products on the market, Europe’s standards, in general, are much higher. This covers everything from drugs to wine to building materials to artisanal cheeses. It is a considerable source of potential conflict. • Labour standards: America just reached a70–year low in the proportion of workers—11.9 percent—who belong to unions. Europe, of course, is far more heavily unionized. Whose standards are going to apply if, under an FTA, Europeans insist on extending their standards to cover imports from the US? • Environmental standards and climate-change policies: The Europeans are far in advance of the Americans by this metric. • Food safety: Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are allowed in some of America’s food supply while the Europeans do not trust them. America and Europe do not already have an FTA because of culture, political history, and different notions of the role of the state. It will be tough getting to the front door of the church. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla
DBA

Let there be no question, a US–EU free trade agreement would be the world’s largest, creating an economic bloc boasting $4 trillion in trade, investment, and commercial sales. Annual trade in goods and services across the Atlantic accounts for about $650 billion of that figure (and 40 percent of global commerce).By comparison, American trade with China comes to about $500 billion, with a $300 billion balance in China’s favour. The potential benefits of a trans–Atlantic FTA are numerous. Tariffs between the two sides are already low, averaging about 5 percent to 7 percent. However, a study by the US Chamber of Commerce found that eliminating these tariffs would boost two-way trade by $120 billion within five years and add $180 billion to the new bloc’s combined GDP. An FTA would also add 1.5 percent to 2 percent combined to U.S. and European output. The global influence of this gigantic economic and commercial entity would be more than either side now enjoys, notably in their dealings with China, Japan, and other nations with differing economic models. Everyone touts “the Asian century,” and the rise of China, India, and others is plain enough. The FTA about to be put on the table would give both the US and Europe ballast. But here is where the house of cards begins to look like… a house of cards. At least in relative terms, things such as tariffs are value-neutral. You can have low tariffs or none and run any kind of economy you prefer. But America and the European Union remind me of a couple I knew in college. They loved one another madly, but could not agree on anything. And they never made it down the aisle. Americans and Europeans are unlikely to cut a deal because of conflicting policy priorities. • Compatible regulatory regimes: Can the two sides achieve them? They are very different in terms of the extent to which governments can intervene to restrict (or not) corporate investment, for instance, or regulate financial entities. America’s markets are more self-regulating than Europe’s. • Testing, certification, and licensing standards: When it comes to procedures required to put products on the market, Europe’s standards, in general, are much higher. This covers everything from drugs to wine to building materials to artisanal cheeses. It is a considerable source of potential conflict. • Labour standards: America just reached a70–year low in the proportion of workers—11.9 percent—who belong to unions. Europe, of course, is far more heavily unionized. Whose standards are going to apply if, under an FTA, Europeans insist on extending their standards to cover imports from the US? • Environmental standards and climate-change policies: The Europeans are far in advance of the Americans by this metric. • Food safety: Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are allowed in some of America’s food supply while the Europeans do not trust them. America and Europe do not already have an FTA because of culture, political history, and different notions of the role of the state. It will be tough getting to the front door of the church. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla
DBA

Let there be no question, a US–EU free trade agreement would be the world’s largest, creating an economic bloc boasting $4 trillion in trade, investment, and commercial sales. Annual trade in goods and services across the Atlantic accounts for about $650 billion of that figure (and 40 percent of global commerce).By comparison, American trade with China comes to about $500 billion, with a $300 billion balance in China’s favour. The potential benefits of a trans–Atlantic FTA are numerous. Tariffs between the two sides are already low, averaging about 5 percent to 7 percent. However, a study by the US Chamber of Commerce found that eliminating these tariffs would boost two-way trade by $120 billion within five years and add $180 billion to the new bloc’s combined GDP. An FTA would also add 1.5 percent to 2 percent combined to U.S. and European output. The global influence of this gigantic economic and commercial entity would be more than either side now enjoys, notably in their dealings with China, Japan, and other nations with differing economic models. Everyone touts “the Asian century,” and the rise of China, India, and others is plain enough. The FTA about to be put on the table would give both the US and Europe ballast. But here is where the house of cards begins to look like… a house of cards. At least in relative terms, things such as tariffs are value-neutral. You can have low tariffs or none and run any kind of economy you prefer. But America and the European Union remind me of a couple I knew in college. They loved one another madly, but could not agree on anything. And they never made it down the aisle. Americans and Europeans are unlikely to cut a deal because of conflicting policy priorities. • Compatible regulatory regimes: Can the two sides achieve them? They are very different in terms of the extent to which governments can intervene to restrict (or not) corporate investment, for instance, or regulate financial entities. America’s markets are more self-regulating than Europe’s. • Testing, certification, and licensing standards: When it comes to procedures required to put products on the market, Europe’s standards, in general, are much higher. This covers everything from drugs to wine to building materials to artisanal cheeses. It is a considerable source of potential conflict. • Labour standards: America just reached a70–year low in the proportion of workers—11.9 percent—who belong to unions. Europe, of course, is far more heavily unionized. Whose standards are going to apply if, under an FTA, Europeans insist on extending their standards to cover imports from the US? • Environmental standards and climate-change policies: The Europeans are far in advance of the Americans by this metric. • Food safety: Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are allowed in some of America’s food supply while the Europeans do not trust them. America and Europe do not already have an FTA because of culture, political history, and different notions of the role of the state. It will be tough getting to the front door of the church. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla
DBA